who are fair-minded and righteous, and to my mind as well as many others I am sure, they are people's heroes in speaking out without fear or favour. I hope more outstanding personalities would emulate them.
1. Retired chartered engineer Koon Yew Yin
From The Star:
2. Retired Court of Appeal Judge NH Chan
From LoyarBurok Interview: NH Chan:
'Malaysia’s most famous retired Court of Appeal judge, the incorrigible, irrepressible and inimitable NH Chan'.
Here is a hypothetical example of how I used to do it when I was a serving judge:
Judge: You are asking for a declaration, is this your point?
Counsel: Yes. The Speaker had acted outside his authority under the Standing Orders of the Assembly when he suspended my clients from attending the Legislative Assembly.
Judge: But what about Article 72(1) of the federal Constitution which says, “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”? As a lawyer you should know “shall” means “must”.
Counsel: Article 72(1) must be read as being subject to the existence of a power or jurisdiction, be it inherent or expressly provided for, to do whatever that has to be done. The Court is empowered to ascertain whether a particular power that has been claimed has in fact been provided for.
Judge: But the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It binds the courts, even Parliament itself, until it is changed by Parliament with a two-thirds majority. What happened within the Assembly cannot be questioned in any court.
Counsel: Parliament makes the Law and the Courts interpret it.
Judge: Surely you don’t interpret the obvious where there is no ambiguity. The words in Article 72(1) mean exactly what they say. Even a child could understand that. And the words in Article 72(1) say that the validity of the proceedings which took place in the Legislative Assembly could not be questioned in any court.
Counsel: I thought it is for the courts to say what the law is. They have the power to interpret the law.
Judge: You are sorely mistaken. True enough when it comes to the common law. It is not so when it is a statute. The courts will interpret a statute only when there is an ambiguity. Not when the words are clear and they are not capable of another meaning. You can’t put words into a statute that are not there.
Counsel: As the court pleases.
Judge: If that is all that you are able to say, here is my decision. I don’t need to hear you Mr T (turning to and addressing Counsel for the Speaker).
Judge: Even when the Speaker has no power to suspend anyone in the Legislative Assembly, it was done by the Speaker in a proceeding in the Legislative Assembly. Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution has decreed that “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”. The validity of the suspension of these members of the Assembly by the Speaker during a proceeding in the Assembly could not, therefore, be questioned by this, or any, court. Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution must be obeyed to the letter. As Lord Denning once said, “No matter how unreasonable or unjust it may be, nevertheless, the judges have no option. They must apply the statute as it stands”. I apply Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution as it stands and I dismiss the application for a declaratory decree.
This is it. There is no need to write a judgment at all. My secretary would have taken it down in shorthand and she would let counsel have a copy of the notes of the proceedings when counsel asks for them. A written decision is unnecessary because it is made on known law. This is a decision on obvious law. Even school children could understand it.
No comments:
Post a Comment